Kiwi joins Ukrainian Army to fight Russian invasion
'I did a fair bit of personal training before coming here, so I could pass the physical fitness requirements.'
Cass arrived in Ukraine in January. In his first hours in Ukraine, just after stepping off the train, he immediately heard an air-raid warning.
He said it's hard to articulate what being in combat is like to those who haven't experienced it.
'You definitely have to shut out the thought of dying and just focus on the mission. It's mentally and physically taxing, though often you don't really notice it building up.
'It's quite draining, but I have a whole lot of people and things to fight for, so I won't give up. You never know what a mission will be like before you go.
'I hate going to and from the combat positions more than I dislike actually being there. FPVs buzzing around and artillery hitting close by definitely keep the adrenaline pumping.'
While he didn't have previous military training, he does have a passion for video games.
'I play Shadow of Chernobyl and War Thunder with my squadmates. Funny story about War Thunder - the modelling of tank armour in that game is quite realistic, so one time during an anti-armour mission, I remembered the weak part of a T-72 we killed based on my knowledge from that game.'
Russia invaded Ukraine in February 2022, starting the largest and deadliest war in Europe since World War II. New Zealand authorities have condemned the attack by Russia since the invasion began.
He admits it's upsetting to travel through Ukrainian towns, not unlike some New Zealand towns, and see them destroyed by the war, but what gets him through is remembering who he's fighting for.
'If I dwell on it too much, yeah, it's pretty upsetting to think about.
'I'm always amazed by the resilience of people trying to live their lives here. Just like back home, people are just trying to get by; they go to work, go home to their families, even as war rages around them, they live on and endure.'
Cass said friends and caregiver [whom he considers his mum] have supported his decision, but are still worried for his safety.
'My friends have been super supportive and lovely, and sent me care packages from back home. I've always liked to say that my friends are my family.
'I think of them when I fight. I think of my friends at home in NZ and around the world too. I would rather fight the Russian invaders here than risk the chance they win and move to invade somewhere even closer to home.'
Despite being thrown into combat, he said he is lucky not to have sustained many injuries.
'[I] buggered my hand up pretty badly after having an ammunition crate dropped on it but nothing too crazy, haven't lost any limbs or anything.
He is the only Kiwi in his tight-knit team, whom he describes as his brothers.
One of the biggest challenges is the language barrier, but his brothers-in-arms are helping him learn alongside his girlfriend in Kyiv.
'My lovely girlfriend and Duolingo are also great helpers.
'It's funny, I came here for war and found love instead. Well, I've found both really.'
After the war, he said he wants to stay in Ukraine.
'They'll never defeat Ukraine's greatest weapon: our spirit.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
NZ Herald
9 hours ago
- NZ Herald
Analysis: Consumed by Epstein, Trump has lost ground on the economy and immigration
Other recent surveys find significant dissatisfaction with Trump's handling of the economy. When he was sworn in, Trump promised a new 'Golden Age'. It's clear that, six months into his presidency, the public isn't buying all the hype. Trump would like nothing better than to point to successes in his second term, and he has had some. The swirling Epstein controversy makes that difficult. Trump has tried to dismiss the controversy as Democratic-manufactured fakery, though this was always an issue generated by conspiracy theorists in the President's base. He wants Attorney-General Pam Bondi to seek the release of pertinent grand jury testimony, a dodge that doesn't address demands for full transparency. For now, he seems stuck, unless his threatened lawsuit against the Wall Street Journal over a story that says he sent a risqué 50th birthday note to Epstein (which he denies) consolidates his base. The White House would like to change the subject, but when press secretary Karoline Leavitt tried to do that at the top of her Thursday briefing (Friday NZT), her lengthy opening statement helped to highlight apparent concerns about public sentiment on both the economy and immigration. Leavitt reeled off statistics trying to make the case that the economy is working for people. She provided citations of arrests as evidence that Trump is ridding the country of migrants with violent criminal records. It will take more than that to drown out the Epstein controversy and change public opinion about his other policies. Trump's successes This comes at a moment when the president has notched some clear successes. Congress approved the big tax cut and immigration bill. The Supreme Court has given him some victories, including a green light to fire thousands of federal workers. The airstrike on Iran's nuclear facilities has brought a ceasefire between Iran and Israel and set back Iran's nuclear programme. Nato nations have agreed to increase defence spending. This past week Trump agreed to send Patriot air defence systems to Ukraine, paid for by the Europeans. That decision came after his public complaints about Russian President Vladimir Putin's continued assault on Ukraine and public perceptions that the Russian leader has played the American president on the issue of a ceasefire and settlement of the war. Immigration and raids Trump also has delivered on his campaign promise to tighten security at the US-Mexico border. Illegal crossings are at a low point. His problem is that people don't like other aspects of his immigration policy: the aggressive round-ups of undocumented and sometimes legal migrants, the deployment of US military forces to Los Angeles to quell protests, numerous legal battles over the deportations that have pitted the Administration against the courts. All have contributed to the reshaping of public opinion. The result is something Trump could never have imagined when he was sworn in: The public now sees the value of immigration more positively, and widespread deportations and the Administration's enforcement tactics less positively. Last year, 55% of Americans said they wanted a reduction in immigration, according to Gallup. Today, that's dropped to 30%. Gallup also notes that a record 79% of Americans say immigration is a good thing for the country. That's a 15% jump in the past year. Meanwhile, support for hiring more border agents, which is supposed to happen under the new 'big, beautiful bill' the President signed on July 4, has declined by 17% in the past year. Support for deporting all undocumented immigrants has dropped nine points, to 38%. In the Gallup poll, support for allowing undocumented immigrants to become US citizens has risen eight points to 78% - though that's a bit lower than the 84% in 2016. The percentage of Republicans who support a path to citizenship has risen from 46% a year ago to 59% today. The Washington Post's average of high-quality polls shows a clear deterioration in Trump's approval rating on immigration. In May, the average showed Americans evenly divided. The average so far in July shows 42% saying they approve and 54% disapproving. The protests that erupted in early June appear to be the catalyst for a reappraisal of Trump on immigration. Before the protests, his immigration approval rating was 49% positive, 49% negative. Since then, the average of the post-protests polls shows his standing at 42% positive, 54% negative. The economy and tariffs Before he was sworn in, public expectations for Trump were highest on the economy and immigration, according to a Washington Post-Schar School poll of swing state voters. In that survey, 62% said they expected Trump to do an 'excellent' or 'good' job on the economy and 59% said they thought he would do an 'excellent' or 'good' job on immigration. Also, 46% said they thought his presidency would help their finances, with 31% saying it would hurt them financially. Until the pandemic took hold in the northern spring of 2020, Trump enjoyed relatively strong ratings on the economy. Things deteriorated during the pandemic and judgments were about evenly divided just before the 2020 election. Today the public is dissatisfied with his economic performance. An Associated Press-NORC Centre for Public Affairs survey last week showed that 38% approved of his economic management and 60% disapproved. A Quinnipiac University poll put his economic approval numbers only slightly better: 43% approving, 55% disapproving. In the AP-NORC poll, nearly half (49%) said his policies have done more to hurt them than help them. About one in four (27%) said they have done more to help them. The rest said the policies have not made a difference. A majority said the new tax bill will do more to help the wealthy and that it will hurt people with lower incomes. In the Quinnipiac poll, 40% said they approved of his handling of trade, with 56% disapproving. Predictions that Trump's tariffs will trigger a major new bout of inflation have not been borne out, though all the tariffs are not in place. The Federal Reserve has been cautious about cutting interest rates because of the uncertainty around the tariffs. Trump continues to badger Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell, whom he would like replaced, to cut those rates substantially. Many economists say a cut of the size Trump wants would risk an inflationary spike. There's history to buttress those concerns. In 1972, President Richard Nixon pressured Fed Chair Arthur Burns, and the subsequent loosening of monetary policy helped unleash an inflationary rise. Trump continues to accumulate power in the presidency and exercise it to change government and major institutions. He plays a dominant role in the world. But his six-month report card provides indications that the public hasn't fully bought into his programme, warnings that he can't easily ignore.
Scoop
12 hours ago
- Scoop
UN80 Initiative Should Be ‘Inclusive And Transparent', Recognises General Assembly
18 July 2025 The text, introduced by Russia and adopted without a vote, 'welcomes the efforts of the SecretaryGeneral to strengthen the United Nations in order to keep pace with a changing world' and calls on UN entities and specialised agencies to align their reform efforts 'as appropriate'. In the resolution, the 193-member Assembly 'recognises the central role of Member States in the reform process, which should be inclusive and transparent'. It also 'looks forward to receiving, in accordance with established procedures' the SecretaryGeneral's proposals under the initiative, 'taking into account the necessity to have clearly defined objectives and an evidence-based approach, and aiming at strengthening the impact of the United Nations and enhancing its agility, responsiveness and resilience while addressing the issue of duplicative efforts and ensuring effective and efficient mandate delivery across all three pillars of the work of the United Nations.' Launched by the Secretary-General in March, the UN80 Initiative centres on three priorities: enhancing operational efficiency, assessing how mandates – or key tasks – from Member States are implemented and exploring structural reforms across the UN system. Mixed reactions on timing Several delegations voiced backing for the reform effort, but questioned the timing of the resolution. Speaking for the European Union, Denmark said the process was 'premature and unnecessarily rushed', noting that limited time for consultations 'did not allow for the constructive engagement such an initiative requires'. Australia, on behalf of the CANZ group (Canada, Australia and New Zealand), echoed that view, warning that an early resolution 'risks limiting both the scope and ambition of the forthcoming proposals'. Switzerland, speaking for a group including Iceland, Norway and Liechtenstein, also stressed that reform should be 'ambitious and strategic', building on existing assets while ensuring longterm efficiencies. Japan emphasised its 'commitment to multilateralism' and said the initiative responds to the urgency of revitalising the UN. 'The success of the UN80 initiative relies on our shared and complementary responsibilities,' its delegate said. Member States in the driving seat Exercising its right of reply, Russia rejected claims that the text was rushed, saying it had 'conducted several rounds of consultations' and 'took into account the red lines specified by delegations, which came out in the silence procedure'. The silence procedure sets out a window of time for delegations to express objections to a draft resolution or decision before it is formally acted upon. The Russian delegate said the resolution puts Member States 'into the driving force of this process' while recognising the SecretaryGeneral's prerogative as chief administrative officer under the UN Charter. 'We seek success in the UN's adaptation to current and future challenges,' the Russian delegate said, calling the resolution's adoption 'a very important step' to ensure universal support for the initiative.
Otago Daily Times
16 hours ago
- Otago Daily Times
Half-smiles as Trump offers Ukraine limited aid
There was rejoicing when US President Donald Trump announced that he was going to let Ukraine have weapons after all, but it was conspicuously contained joy. Half-smiles and sighs of relief were plentiful; cheers were absent or faked. The Ukrainians were relieved because this is the first time they will be getting weapons actually ordered by Trump. The stop-go dribble of arms that the US has sent Ukraine at intervals in the past five months was really the tail-end of Joe Biden's last package, although Trump had to approve each shipment. What Trump is willing to send now remains unclear, but at least it's on his own initiative and $US10 billion has been mentioned. And Ukrainians don't care that the money will really be provided by other Nato members, who will buy the weapons from the US but pass them on Ukraine's armed forces. What does concern Ukrainians is that Trump's threatened "secondary tariffs" (more accurately secondary sanctions) on countries like India and China that are still buying cut-rate Russian oil and gas and supporting Moscow's war economy will not start for 50 more days. That gives Russian President Vladimir Putin 49 more days to bomb Kyiv and other Ukrainian cities with impunity, and Trump is notorious for shifting his deadlines to later dates. (Taco, as they say — "Trump always chickens out".) Moreover, Trump warned Ukraine not to attack Moscow in return. So, the Russian reaction to Trump's apparent change of heart was relief that it wasn't worse. It is mostly "hot air", wrote Konstantin Kosachev, a senior Russian politician, on Telegram. "A lot can change in 50 days — on the battlefield and in the mindset of those in power, both in the US and in Nato." That's mostly correct, but not so much about Nato, most of whose other members have privately concluded that the United States under Trump is no longer a trustworthy ally. That leaves them dreadfully exposed if Russia conquers Ukraine and they become the next item on Putin's agenda. The historical division of labour within the Nato alliance has left the Europeans lacking in key military categories like aerial surveillance, satellite data and nuclear deterrence. Trump imagines that the recent commitment of most Nato countries to spend 5% of GDP on defence — twice or more than they were spending two years ago — was a response to his demands. It was really a decision to achieve strategic independence from the United States. They have realised they are on their own. Their problem is that it will take at least five years of strenuous effort to reach that goal, and until then they will still need US support — which explains the fake adulation and fulsome flattery they offer Trump at every opportunity. Boot-licking is hard work, and they probably can't keep it up for five years, but every month makes a difference. Most European decision-makers understand that a Russian victory in Ukraine must be avoided at all costs, and that they must therefore do whatever they can to keep Trump on side. Is that really possible? Not if the slide of the United States into a "soft fascism" accelerates. Not if China invades Taiwan and panics the US into a global war. Not if Putin dies or is overthrown, only for an even more ruthless and reckless ruler to take his place. The negative possibilities are big and plausible — but so are less disastrous outcomes. It is still possible to draw a credible scenario in which the current stalemate in Ukraine endures for another year or so and then reaches an "in-place" ceasefire like the one that has lasted in Korea for 72 years. It is possible that the US can be kept in Nato long enough for the European members plus Canada to get their act together and become an independent strategic body. It is possible that China will retain its half-hearted loyalty to the international rule of law and not become another rogue state. It is likewise possible that the United States, having spent some time under a capricious and authoritarian government, will return to its democratic roots, which run very deep. Regime change in Russia might reawaken the desire for democracy that was so prominent in the late 1980s and early '90s. It's not over until the fat lady sings. It's not even over after the fat lady sings. We are heading into a period where all bets are off because climate change will change all other calculations, and the only rational response will be co-operation on a global scale. No promises, but despair is rarely the right move. — Gwynne Dyer is an independent London journalist.
